'Affluenza teen' Ethan Couch leaves Texas jail after nearly two years

[Excon]

Unsupported opinion noted and discarded.

Stop projecting.
Your arguemtns are the ones unsupported.

Again.
The report was that no one would take him, not about being accepted but not being able to afford.

There is absolutely no way that they were referring to every last provider, including ones that likely would have been consulted in the event this kid had millions to throw around, and surely weren't even thought of given his limited means.

Just stop with the nonsense.
You have no idea of why it was said the way it was, or if there is an actual reason behind the nonacceptance contrary to what you want to speculate about.

 

[Surrealistik]

Just stop with the nonsense.
You have no idea of why it was said the way it was, or if there is an actual reason behind the nonacceptance contrary to what you want to speculate about.

What I know is that:

A: There is no way that every last accredited provider was consulted,

and

B: That his limited means also determined which subset of providers was consulted, because there is no point in approaching an institution you plainly can't afford.

If you can't or won't acknowledge something so basic and obvious, I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[Excon]

What I know is that:

A: There is no way that every last accredited provider was consulted,


and

B: That his limited means also determined which subset of providers was consulted, because there is no point in approaching an institution you plainly can't afford.

If you can't or won't acknowledge something so basic and obvious, I'm done discussing this with you.

All irrelevant at this time, unless the reason behind no one taking him is known. Which I am sure we are not going to discover at this point in time. But if this information is ever made known I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

And we were done the moment I told you; "It is not reasonable to assume facts not in evidence in a legal discussion". Why you did not understand that is beyond me.

 

[Surrealistik]

All irrelevant at this time, unless the reason behind no one taking him is known. Which I am sure we are not going to discover at this point in time. But if this information is ever made known I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

And we were done the moment I told you; "It is not reasonable to assume facts not in evidence in a legal discussion". Why you did not understand that is beyond me.

I pressed on because it's plainly evident that his inability to afford top level private providers, or indeed, pay top dollar to any accredited provider to motivate them to take him on, was indeed a factor in his sentencing.

Only in the most absolutely implausible instance, where A and B are somehow not true, and that literally not a single provider would take him regardless of millions, would that not be the case.

 

[Excon]

I pressed on because it's that his inability to afford top level private providers,

Plainly evident? Hilarious as well as a illogical.
No such thing is evident by "no one would take him".

 

[Surrealistik]

Plainly evident? Hilarious as well as a illogical.
No such thing is evident by "no one would take him".

The irony of this statement is not lost on me; I'm done.

Die on that ridiculous hill if you like.

 

[Excon]

The irony of this statement is not lost on me; I'm done.

Die on that ridiculous hill if you like.

That hill was, is and still remains all yours.

 

[tres borrachos]

Wrong. A system not working means it is not doing things according to the law. That is outside of the law.
In this case everything was inside of the bounds of the law which shows the law was working.


That is a dumb reply and you know it.


Under the JJ System it most certainly did, as evidenced by similar sentences being given. You not liking the applicable sentence is irrelevant to that objective fact.


They most certainly did regardless of how you or they feel about it.
Justice is the system operating as it does, not a certain outcome. In this case, it operated as it does. Feelings do not change that.


Yes he did.
Just because you disagree with objective reality does not mean he didn't.

Supervised release is most certainly a penalty, which he has to endure for 6 more years.


FFS. Doh!
You really are not doing well with all these objectively false claims you have been making.

​

I have no idea why you choose to make false statements that actually appear to be projections, but that is clearly on you.

The fact that you use a statement from Couch's attorneys to try to prove he is remorseful shows that it was a waste of time for anyone to engage you in this discussion.

I'll let the others waste their time on your ignorance. It isn't worth it.

 

[tres borrachos]

It was a private school, and they contacted Couch's parents to ask why he was driving himself to school at age 13, Lmao. The parents threatened to buy the school and shut it down.

HAHAHA that was it! Thanks for the reminder. Yup his parents let him drive to school when he was 13 and the school pushed back on that (gee, I wonder why) and Dad threatened to buy the school.

This family is absolutely insane.

 

[Excon]

The fact that you use a statement from Couch's attorneys to try to prove he is remorseful shows that it was a waste of time for anyone to engage you in this discussion.

I'll let the others waste their time on your ignorance. It isn't worth it.

As the statement shows you are making up bs to believe it says everything we need to know about your participation.
And the only ignorance between the two of us here has been yours.